unb review of administrative servicesthe project team recommended that a new provost position be...

UNB Review of Administrative Services Final ReportApril 4, 2017

2© 2017 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

University of New Brunswick – Review of Administrative Services

DisclaimerThis report is based on information and documentation that was made available to KPMG at the date of this report. KPMG has not audited nor otherwise attempted to independently verify the information provided unless otherwise indicated. Should additional information be provided to KPMG after the issuance of this report, KPMG reserves the right (but will be under no obligation) to review this information and adjust our comments accordingly.

Pursuant to the terms of our engagement, it is understood and agreed that all decisions in connection with the implementation of advice and recommendations as provided by KPMG during the course of this engagement shall be the responsibility of, and made by, the University of New Brunswick. KPMG has not and will not perform management functions or make management decisions for the University of New Brunswick.

This report may include or make reference to future oriented financial information. Readers are cautioned that since these financial projections are based on assumptions regarding future events, actual results will vary from the information presented even if the hypotheses occur, and the variations may be material.

Comments in this report are not intended, nor should they be interpreted, to be legal advice or opinion.

KPMG has no present or contemplated interest in University of New Brunswick. Accordingly, we believe we are independent of the University of New Brunswick and are acting objectively.


The contacts at KPMG in connection with this report are:

Louie VelocciManagement ConsultingPartner

Tel: [email protected]

Bruce PeeverManagement ConsultingDirector


Sonya GulatiManagement ConsultingManager


Alan MakDeal Advisory, InfrastructureSenior Consultant


Table of ContentsUniversity of New Brunswick – Review of Administrative Services

Page

Disclaimer 2

Executive Summary 4

Project Overview 10

Summary of Findings From Consultations 15

Comparative Analysis 23

Shared Service Models 33

Organizational Design 38

Recommendations & Implementation Plan 48

Appendix A: Structural Options 56

Executive Summary

University of New Brunswick

Review of Administrative Services

Final Report


Executive Summary

Introduction

IntroductionKPMG was engaged by the University of New Brunswick (“UNB” or “the University”) to conduct a review of its administrative functions as a result of the work of the University Administrative Review Taskforce established by the President of UNB in September 2015. The mandate of the Taskforce was to review the University’s administrative units and processes to ensure effectiveness and efficiency across all units and to ensure all units support the mission and strategic direction of the University.

This final report was prepared to provide an objective evaluation of the University’s administrative functions in terms of organizational effectiveness and efficiency and to make recommendations to improve the overall performance of administrative support services. Through a series of interviews, data analysis, comparator surveys and leadership team working sessions, KPMG has developed six recommendations for UNB’s consideration. These recommendations, based upon leading practice, should improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the current service delivery model for UNB’s administrative services.

Setting the StageKPMG was engaged by UNB to undertake a review of administrative structures. The overall goal of the administrative review was to conduct an objective evaluation of the University’s administrative functions in terms of organizational effectiveness and efficiency and to make recommendations to improve the overall performance of administrative support services.

Specific project objectives include:

• Understand the current state of administrative functions on the two main campuses of UNB;

• Determine whether the University’s administrative functions are demonstrably efficient and effective and aligned to the needs of their clients;

• Identify leading practices in administrative structure for Canadian universities;

• Identify whether there are any changes to the organizational structure the University should consider for its administrative functions and whether there are opportunities to improve decision-making processes; and,

• Develop a roadmap for the practical implementation of any recommendations arising from the review.


Executive Summary

Recommendations

Ref No. Observations and Implications Recommendations Potential Outcomes

1 At present, the University operates with separate leadership for each campus. The two campuses are largely structured as stand alone enterprises with their own administrative leadership and budgets.

The University’s adoption of the one university/two campus model and the Project Team’s endorsement of the One Leader/One Unit shared services model will necessitate a change in how administrative services are delivered. The One Leader/One Unit shared service model will mean functional services are delivered across the organization from one common business unit. There will be no separate business units at each campus location.

• Adopt the One Leader/One Unit shared service model in which functional administrative services are delivered across the University organization from one common business unit.

• Increased efficiency in the delivery of administrative services

• Removal of duplicate positions at either campus

• Operationalizes the concept of one university/two campuses

2 UNB currently operates without a Provost. There are two campus Vice Presidents each responsible for the academic affairs of their respective Campuses who work in cooperation with the third academic Vice-President responsible for research and graduate studies. The impact for administrative services is that the alignment of administrative resources to the academic mission of the University varies across the two campuses of UNB. In order for the University’s academic mission to drive the allocation of resources, there needs to be one Provost responsible for both campuses. The Project Team recommended that a new Provost position be created to which three Academic Vice Presidents would report. Given the financial position of the University, consideration should be given to the appointment of one of the existing campus Vice Presidents as Provost.

• Create a Provost position responsible for the delivery of the academic mission of the University and the alignment of resources (administrative and academic) across both campuses.

• In recognition of the financial position of UNB, designate the VP Academic (Fredericton) position as the Provost for the University and VP Academic (Fredericton).

• Designate the position of Vice-President of the Saint John Campus as Vice-Provost.

• Model the Provost governance model on Dalhousie University’s model, i.e. academic mission drives budget.

• University decisions align with its mission and strategic priorities across all campuses;

• Goals are integrated across academic faculties and administrative business units;

• Refocusing of the President on the external agenda of the University

• Clear and efficient decision making


Executive Summary

Recommendations


3 Each campus currently has its own budget which is managed by the leadership team on the respective campuses. These budgets are developed largely independent of one another and are then brought together for approval by the University’s Board of Governors.

This budget structure is inconsistent with the one university/two campus model that UNB recently adopted. In addition, if the University wishes to move to a shared service model like the One Leader/One Unit model, the budget will need to be based upon the requirements of the business unit across both campuses and not structured according to geography.

• Structure the University’s budget so that it is based upon the requirements of specific business units across both campuses under the leadership of the functional leader.

• Increased synergy between the two campuses in the delivery of administrative services

• Improved financial control and management

• Better deployment of resources

4 The Saint John campus has enjoyed considerable success with the creation of a common services desk for students. The establishment of one desk to handle matters such as business services and registration has improved the student experience on the Saint John campus and reduced the administrative cost of operation for the campus.

There is an opportunity to replicate the success of the Saint John campus’s common services desk on the Fredericton campus. The Project Team identified multiple services that could be provided, including: cashier, transcript requests, parking passes, job applications, identification cards, room bookings, switch board, campus tours and/or residence applications. A key issue to be resolved on the Fredericton campus is facility location/home for the shared services desk. Currently these services are delivered across multiple buildings on the Fredericton campus. Consideration would have to be given to a central location for a common services desk with the appropriate support IT infrastructure and accessibility.

• Establish a common services desk for the Fredericton campus modelled on the success of the Saint John campus common services desk.

• Ensure that the common services desk has the necessary IT infrastructure and is located in a facility that is accessible to all students and staff of UNB.

• Expansion of the Common Services desk on the Saint John Campus

• Improved student experience and support

• Greater integration among the administrative services in the delivery of student services

• Decreased cost for the delivery of administrative services


Executive Summary

Recommendations


5 We were advised that there are administrative staff located within academic faculties that are delivering administrative services often not in co-ordination with administrative business units (Finance, Information Technology, Human Resources, Communications, Recruitment). From our consultations, we understand these resources were acquired by the individual faculties because of a perceived need for fundamental administrative support that was not being met by the central department. The placement of administrative resources outside of their traditional departments has resulted in a disjointed approach to the delivery of administrative services.

• Continue with the practice of locating administrative positions within academic faculties to directly support the faculty’s academic mission; however, these administrative resources would report to the appropriate leadership of the administrative departments.

• Consistent administrative service delivery across the University organization

• Clear understanding of the depth and capacity of administrative services within the University


Executive Summary

Prioritization of Opportunities

1 32 4

Difficulty to implement

Impa

ct o

n U

NB

High

Low

Low High

Sample rating of each of the potential opportunities for improvement against two criteria:

■ Difficulty to implement- This rating indicates the degree to which the

potential opportunity for improvement would be difficult (high) or simple (low) to implement

- A difficult implementation would come at a higher cost to UNB and / or may take longer to implement, while a simple implementation would come at a minimal cost and / or may be implemented within a short time frame

■ Impact on UNB- This rating indicates the degree to which the

potential opportunity for improvement would produce large (high) or minimal (low) benefits for UNB

- A large benefit would reduce the deficit by more than a small benefit

The order that opportunities should be implemented would be: (1) top left quadrant (low difficulty, high benefit), (2) bottom left (low difficulty, low benefit) and (3) top right (high difficulty, high benefit). Those in the bottom right quadrant would be considered to be optional as a result of the potential effort required versus the potential benefit derived.

1

2

3

4

5

1. Adopt the One Leader/One Unit shared service model in which functional administrative services are delivered across the Universityorganization from on common business unit.

2. Create a Provost position responsible for the delivery of the academic mission of the University and the alignment of resources(administrative and academic) across both campuses.

3. Structure the University’s budget so that it is based upon the requirements of the specific business units across both campuses under theleadership of the functional leader.

4. Establish a common services desk for the Fredericton campus modelled on the success of the Saint John campus common services desk and expand the Saint John Common Services desk.

5. Continue with the practice of locating administrative positions within academic faculties/ administrative departments to directly support the faculty’sacademic mission; however, these administrative resources would report to the appropriate leadership of the administrative departments.

Project Overview



Final Report


Project Overview

Introduction and Context

IntroductionKPMG was engaged by the University of New Brunswick (“UNB” or “the University”) to conduct a review of its administrative functions as a result of the work of the University Administrative Review Taskforce established by the President of UNB in September 2015. The mandate of the Taskforce was to review the University’s administrative units and processes to ensure effectiveness and efficiency across all units and to ensure all units support the mission and strategic direction of the University.

This final report was prepared to provide an objective evaluation of the University’s administrative functions in terms of organizational effectiveness and efficiency and to make recommendations to improve the overall performance of administrative support services. Through a series of interviews, data analysis, comparator surveys and leadership team working sessions, KPMG has developed six recommendations for UNB’s consideration. These recommendations, based upon leading practice, should improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the current service delivery model for UNB’s administrative services.

Setting the StageThe University of New Brunswick is a public university with primary campuses located in Fredericton and Saint John, New Brunswick. It is the oldest English-language university in Canada, and among the oldest public universities in North America. UNB is a comprehensive university offering full-time and part-time undergraduate and graduate degrees in arts, science, business administration, computer science, nursing, engineering, education, forestry, law and kinesiology, as well as certificates and diplomas. The University has two main campuses: the original campus, founded in 1785 in Fredericton, and a smaller campus which opened in Saint John in 1964. In addition, there are two small satellite health sciences sites located in Moncton and Bathurst, New Brunswick.

In 2014, UNB established a Senior Administration Responsibility Review Committee (“the Committee”) composed of senior academic leaders from three Canadian universities. The Committee concluded in its final report that the “administrative structure and processes of UNB are preventing it from reaching its potential. Its evolution as a two-campus institution has left in its wake unresolved confusion and ambiguity in administrative authority, and gaps in the exercise of responsibility.” As a result of the Committee’s work, the President established the University Administrative Review Taskforce (the “Taskforce”) to continue the work of the Committee and resolve the administrative barriers that are preventing the University from reaching its full potential. Ultimately the Taskforce’s work led to the appointment of KPMG to assist the University in identifying potential improvements and ensuring its business processes follow leading practice so that the overall delivery of administrative services to students, faculty and staff is improved.


Project Overview

Project Objectives and DriversProject ObjectivesKPMG has been engaged by UNB to undertake a review of administrative structures. The overall goal of the administrative review is to conduct an objective evaluation of the University’s administrative functions in terms of organizational effectiveness and efficiency and to make recommendations to improve the overall performance of administrative support services.

Specific project objectives include:

• Understand the current state of administrative functions on the two main campuses of UNB;

• Determine whether the University’s administrative functions are demonstrably efficient and effective and aligned to the needs of their clients;

• Identify leading practices in administrative structure for Canadian universities;

• Identify whether there are any changes to the organizational structure the University should consider for its administrative functions and whether there are opportunities to improve decision-making processes; and,

• Develop a roadmap for the practical implementation of any recommendations arising from the review.

Project DriversUNB’s continuous improvement strategy requires that it regularly review its operations to identify potential improvements, ensure its business processes are consistent with leading practice and improve the delivery of administrative services to its students, faculty and staff.

UNB commissioned an earlier Administrative Review Taskforce Report that identified the organizational design of the University’sadministrative functions as a first step in achieving a higher performing organization.


Project Overview

Project Objectives and DriversProject Scope and Deliverables

Phase One: Project Initiation• Kick Off Meeting with Project Team • Project Charter• Project Schedule

Phase Two: Current State• Document/Data Collection and Review• Interviews • Identification of current organizational structure’s strengths and weaknesses• Identification of areas for business improvements

Phase Three: Comparative Options• Conduct interviews with three comparator comprehensive universities to understand the innovative administrative options that

may be available as well as to gather qualitative feedback regarding the benefits and challenges of particular administrativestructures and delivery models

• Summary of findings

Phase Four: Organizational Development• Conduct a series of working sessions with the Project Team to review the findings from the jurisdictional review and construct a

handful of structure options by aligning functions into work streams• Identify the benefits and drawbacks related to each option, paying particular attention to current service levels and leading

practices

Phase Five: Implementation Plan & Final Report• A final report (in PowerPoint format) consolidating the feedback from the Project Team • Final Report and presentation to an agreed upon leadership group


Work Plan and Progress Report

This engagement commenced November 22, 2016, and will be substantially complete when the draft final report is submitted to UNB on or before March 30, 2017.

Project Overview

Work Plan

Project Initiation Current State Analysis

Comparative Review

Organizational Structure Final Report

1. Meet with the Project Team to clarify expectations, refine lines of inquiry, and develop a subsequent work program for the engagement.

2. Collect relevant information on current methods of service delivery and conduct stakeholder engagement exercises.

3. Identification of three governance models, their risks and tax implications to the University.

5. Develop and present a final report.

4. Develop organization structure options based upon organizational analysis and design principles and recommend optimal structure.

November December January March

Summary of Findings from ConsultationsUniversity of New Brunswick


Final Report


The following individuals (listed in alphabetical order) participated in interviews over the two and a half week consultation period:

Perspectives on the University’s current administrative structure, processes, people practices and culture were gained through interviews with 23 UNB staff identified by the Project Sponsor. In addition, the University’s Deans were surveyed for their opinions on administrative services at the University.

Specific responses have been aggregated in this summary document and are presented in the form of general themes and messages. The findings of the consultation presented in this summary document will be used to inform the development of possible structures as a first step in achieving an optimal administrative structure for UNB.

Summary of Findings

The Engagement Process

Name Position

Ian Allen Executive Director, College of Extended Learning

Shawna Bergin Registrar (Fredericton)

John Bigger AVP Campus Operations

Mark Bishop Registrar (Saint John)

David Burns VP (Research)

H.E.A. Campbell President & Vice-Chancellor

Karen Cunningham VP (Administration and Finance)

Shirley Cleave AVP Academic Learning Environment (Fredericton)

Sarah DeVarenne University Secretary

Heather Finkle Director Financial Admin Services

David Gillespie Manager, Environmental Health, Safety & Security Department

Larry Guitard Asst. VP (Admin. & Finance) & Treasurer

Don Harrington Comptroller

Lloyd Henderson AVP Student Recruitment & Strategic Enrollment Management

Laurelle LeVert AVP (Saint John)

Robert MacKinnon VP (Saint John)

George MacLean VP Academic (Fredericton)

Peter McDougall AVP Human Resources & Organizational Development

Barb Nicholson AVP (Capital Planning & Property Development)

Terry Nikkel AVP Information Technology Services

Kevin Simpson Director, Facilities Management

Bob Skillen Vice-President - Advancement

Mark Warren Director, University Budgeting & Decision Support


Summary of Findings

A Model for Analyzing Organizational Performance

Strategy Structure Processes and Lateral Capability People Practices

Org

aniz

atio

nal P

robl

ems

Low Performance

GridlockFrictionConfusion

If strategy is missing, unclear, or not agreed

upon

If the structure isn’t aligned to

the strategy

If the developmentof coordinatingmechanisms isleft to chance

If people aren’tenabled and empowered

• No common direction; people pulling in different directions

• No criteria for decisionmaking

• Inability to mobilizeresources

• Ineffective execution; lost opportunity for competitive advantage

• Lack of collaboration across boundaries

• Long decision and innovation cycle times

• Difficult to shareinformation and leverage best practices

• Effort without results• Low employee

satisfaction

Source : Modified from Galbraith's Organizational Review Metrics

Culture

If behaviours don’treflect the

organization’s values

Distrust

• No employeeengagement

• Bureaucratic churn


Summary of Findings

Organizational Considerations

• Structure• Work alignment• Delegation of authority• Capacity

Structure

• Decision making• Communication• Enabling technology • Standardized operational processes and practices

Processes and Lateral Capability

• Staff engagement• HR practices and policies• Performance management• Training and support

People Practices

Strategy

• Understanding of strategy and mission• Alignment to vision• Agreement on priorities• Clarity in performance measures

Organizational Factor

Culture• Values and beliefs• Behaviours


Emerging Themes from ConsultationsSummary of Findings

Several key themes have emerged from the data collection and early analysis phases of this review. These themes and high-level observations are summarized below and are presented in more detail in the following section. The analysis recognizes the strengths of the University’s administrative services, but also focuses on how continued investments in its people and work processes can drive greater value for the University and ensure improved service delivery both for clients (students and faculty) and the people who deliver these services.

Strategy

One University – Two campus

The recent leadership strategic planning session from which emerged the theme One University – Two Campus was regarded positively by all of those interviewed.

There appears to be genuine enthusiasm about moving to this model and away from the current environment of uncertainty and confusion around accountabilities/responsibilities between the two campus sites.

Agreement on priorities

It was felt that any change to the University’s strategic priorities has to come from the University’s executive leadership. The continual debate on the two campus issue, in particular, is affecting UNB’s performance.

Stakeholders who we spoke with believe there is a gap in the development of the academic plans. It is also their belief that the academic planning exercise currently underway is proceeding differently on the two campuses and that a single approach to academic planning would improve the synergies of the University and address the establishment of academic specializations on each campus.

It was identified that there is a no one position responsible for overseeing the academic mission of the University across both campuses. This has hampered efforts to reach agreement on academic priorities across both campuses. Where this view was identified, stakeholders also noted the benefit of establishing a Provost position overseeing both campuses.

There was an overwhelming belief from the consulted stakeholders on the Saint John campus that there is an urgent need to address the enrollment at this campus and re-establish its long-term sustainability.

Clarity in performance measures

There is no common performance management system for administrative functions across the University. Individual faculties and departments have developed their own unique systems of performance measurement.


Emerging Themes from ConsultationsStructure

Structure

Stakeholders indicated that there would be only a marginal return from any re-alignment of the administrative structure since administrative services are already lean, particularly in Saint John.

There was a clear view that there has not been a plan or architect for the current administrative structure, rather it has just evolved over time. None of the interviewees were able to identify any design principles associated with the current organizational structure.

It was commonly noted that the University’s organizational structure is designed around either personalities, vacancies when somebody leaves UNB, or the political needs of the Saint John community.

It is believed that the recent integrative model for student recruitment across both campuses could be deployed in other administrative functions to improve efficiency and effectiveness. It was suggested that the Registrars Office is an example of where similar integration could occur, removing the duplication of two University registrars.

Work alignment

There is currently an inconsistent view as to how Finance is structured. For example, Finance for research programs reports to the Vice President Research and not the Vice President of Finance and Administration.

There is a belief that the University functions because people make it happen – its organizational structure does not support productive performance. For example, the Saint John Campus library is part of the University’s library system but there’s no management structure that ties it to the University system.

The organizational structure of the University’s administration is largely functional with limited cross departmental reporting or integration. There is a belief that some type of formal matrix structure could be beneficial in order to reduce departmental silos.

Delegation of authority There was a lack of clarity reported around levels of delegated authority in some departments. It was noted that

Executive Leadership tend to wade into granular operational issues.

Capacity

It was remarked during the consultations that while the for-profit business units appear profitable, they appear to lack co-ordination and guidance essential for their success as for-profit business units.

Stakeholders believe that the development of an optimal corporate structure and sustainable business model for the for-profit business units could also mean a change in business processes and position responsibilities throughout the various functional areas of the University.

Summary of Findings


Emerging Themes from Consultations

Processes and Systems

Decision making

It was reported that there is often a reluctance for decisions to be made unless a Vice President is involved in the process. It was noted that people are reluctant to make decisions that would have implications beyond their own department and/or campus. As a result, it was felt that Vice Presidents – and sometimes the President – were often involved in operational matters, rather than strategic issues such as the future direction and development of UNB.

It was noted that individual business units have talented and skilled people who know their jobs and work well within their business units. Corporate initiatives that involve multiple business units and span departments, however, have a different experience. It takes just one business unit to say they are not co-operating to stop the whole initiative and require an organizational re-set.

Communication

There was concern reported from the Saint John campus that the Executive Leadership team has limited visibility on campus and that they should consider increasing their profile.

It was reported that there can also be a lack of transparency and information sharing between the two campuses and business units. For example, the development of the annual budget may require the intervention of a Vice President in order to expedite information requests. There is a view that Project FOCUS (UNB’s ERP Renewal Project) may help to address this issue, but there was concern that data is often held on personal spreadsheets rather than on shared servers, complicating the sharing of information across the organization.

Consistency in communications was also highlighted by stakeholders. There is a perception that the hiring freeze only pertains to the Saint John Campus.

Standardized operational processes and practices

Some stakeholders remarked that UNB could improve its processes through the central development of University policies and procedures and their implementation at the campus level. Some stakeholders remarked that UNB could improve its processes through the central development of University policy and procedures and their implementation at the campus level. Examples cited include, separate budget processes on each campus, two Registrars, two facilities management operations, and two residence services operations.

It was identified that there is no organization-wide process to establish departmental plans and priorities that are integrated across the leadership team. Information Technology Services (ITS) has adopted a balanced scorecard approach for performance measurement within its business unit. This may be contributing to the common perception of functional silos.

The “one-stop shop” for students that is operating in Saint John appears to be effective and has brought about efficiencies and has improved the academic experience for students. It was remarked that Fredericton could benefit from this model.

Summary of Findings


Emerging Themes from ConsultationsPeople Practices

HR practices and policies

It was noted that human resource staffing is lean and there are no back up resources available in the event of illness or other types of leave. Currently, for example, the labour relations position is on sick leave and the Associate Vice President is managing first response grievances.

There are currently no positions in the organization responsible for organizational development and performance or compensation planning.

Stakeholders noted that there is no formal succession planning across the University for any positions so there tends to be gaps and knowledge loss when vacancies occur.

Staff Engagement

There is a genuine commitment to improving the education of students and to providing the best teaching, learning and research possible. It was often remarked that people are passionate about the impact they have on students. In addition, there is a common belief that UNB offers a societal good and has a positive impact on communities and the province.

Summary of Findings

Culture

Values and beliefs

A number of people reported fatigue over the ongoing two university/campus debate and the lack of trust that exists between the two campuses. It was felt that this was improving under the current leadership team but further progress was required.

There was considerable optimism for the change to the One University – Two Campus model. Although there was a recognition that the two Senates have different cultures, this will take some time and effort to overcome.

Several stakeholders commented on the “UNB Way” and a general reluctance to change among the long time members of the University. Any champion of change is up against the UNB Way, but it was also noted there is a large number of staff who would welcome change. A couple of stakeholders remarked that people give up too easily when they encounter resistance within the University organization.

Comparative Analysis



Final Report


1. What are your FTE’s for academic and administrative positions?


Faculty & Administrative Positions

• The FTE total is not available. • There are 2,549 staff.• On the academic side, there are 428

permanent faculty and 373 term appointments for a total of 801 full-time employees.

• The number of permanent employees is 1,249 which includes faculty, administrative staff, CUPE etc.

• The number of term positions is 1,535, including coaches, residence positions, teachers etc.

• There are 1,142 permanent Faculty.• There are 1,538 permanent staff.• Marine Institute has 169 Faculty and 115

staff.• Grenfell College has 71 Faculty and 115

staff.

• A breakdown was not available.• There are approximately 1,100 Faculty

members.

University of Regina Memorial University Dalhousie UniversityQuestion

While detailed information was not available at all comparator universities, the group of universities has a wide range of permanent and term Faculty and Administrative positions.


2. Do you have multiple campuses?


Multiple Campuses

• Main Campus (College Avenue).• Two satellite campuses (Saskatoon and

Prince Albert). • 3 federated colleges (Luther College,

Campion College and First Nations University). Both Luther and Campion Colleges are faith-based colleges. All colleges are academically integrated with the Main campus.

• Main Campus in St. John’s• Marine Institute in St. John’s• Grenfell Campus in Corner Brook

• Dalhousie has 3 contiguous campuses. • There is also a geographically distinct

campus located in Truro NS where the Faculty of Agriculture resides.

• Over the longer-term, it is envisioned that the Truro Campus will be a programmatic hub and will include other faculties.

• Dalhousie also has a medical school which resides on the UNB Saint John campus as part of the Dalhousie Medicine New Brunswick program. This site is not Dalhousie’s campus.

University of Regina Memorial University Dalhousie University

a. How long have they existed and why were they created?

Question

All of the comparator universities have multiple campuses – all have contiguous and geographically distinct campuses. Inception of these satellite campuses differs across the comparators. For instance, in some cases, mergers were recent and in other cases, the facility is new and/or leased.

• The University of Regina Main Campus (College Avenue) is over 100 years old.

• There is a small satellite campus in Saskatoon which holds the Faculty of Nursing and Social Work. It is a fairly new facility and is leased.

• There are regional colleges across the province and in the territories. Territorial colleges teach University of Regina curriculum and the University of Regina grants the degrees.

• The Marine Institute has a different structure, marine industry involvement and tends to offer short courses versus graduate / undergraduate courses.

• Grenfell Campus was established in the mid-1970s and has undergone various name changes / affiliations since its inception, most recently in 2010.

• For the purpose of this review, Grenfell is the second campus for Memorial University.

• The Agriculture College was merged with Dalhousie University approximately four years ago and rebranded as a campus of the University.


b. How does the management/administration of the second campus fit within the university executive leadership team/structure?


Multiple Campuses (cont’d)

• The President of the University of Regina regularly meets with the 3 college Presidents.

• University administration is centralized.

Five VPs report to the President.• VP Academic & Provost• VP Admin + Finance• VP Research• VP Grenfell Campus• VP Marine Institute

• The Dean of Agriculture, reports to the Provost; as Principal, reports to President.

• Dalhousie Agriculture has a fairly sizeable campus and an equally sizeable number of services which need to be fulfilled.

• Individuals are located at the Agriculture campus but have accountability to Dalhousie’s central office.

• This structure is quite intentional, as it allows the University to be sensitive to the satellite campus but maintain a common University standard.


c. Do you have any challenges related to the management of more than one campus? Please provide detail/examples.

Question

Through various structures, management at all satellite campuses report to the President. Some challenges exist for managing multiple sites: (1) budgetary / fiscal concerns; (2) duplication of services to compensate for the wide distance between sites; and (3) making the satellite campuses feel like they are a priority and visible.

• None – everything seems to be working well.

• The different campuses appeal to different students, so there is no competition for the same students.

• Operating a second fully functional campus across Newfoundland causes some budgetary and fiscal concerns / constraints because the University has to duplicate a lot of functions / services.

• The 900km distance between the campuses makes some of this duplication necessary.

• One particular challenge is providing the satellite campus with the attention it deserves so it does not feel secondary.

• The University is addressing this challenge by involving stakeholders in the management of emerging issues.

• For example, an up-front investment was made in video-conferencing. In addition, specific seats on the Senate are reserved for the Faculty of Agriculture.


d. What is the reporting structure for the multiple campuses?


Multiple Campuses (cont’d)

• The President of the University of Regina regularly meets with the three college Presidents.

• The University has academic oversight across multiple campuses and the faith-based colleges. There is an agreement in place in this regard.

• Under the VP at Grenfell, there are three Associate Vice Presidents (AVPs): • AVP Research; • AVP Academic; and • AVP Finance and Administration.

• The same structure is present at the Main Campus, but these positions are labelled Directors instead of AVPs.

• Early on it was agreed that the Agriculture Campus would benefit from having a Principal.

• At present, the Dean of Agriculture is also the Campus Principal.

• The Principal’s role is to coordinate services linking the Agriculture Campus with the Senior Management Team.

• In two years, it anticipated that a separate Principal position will be filled.


c. What is the level of autonomy on each campus? (Specifically, administrative support and decision making –budget, facilities, financial reporting, etc.)

Question

The reporting structure across comparators differs. In all cases, the Campus Presidents report directly to the University President. In one case, the University decided to implement a Principal at the satellite campus to enhance coordination and alignment with the Senior Team. The degree of autonomy also differs – in some cases, autonomy is low and in other cases, the satellite campus is fairly independent and has oversight of its budget.

• With respect to the colleges, they are "administratively independent", managing their own facilities, hiring their own staff and bargaining with them, and managing their own finances (government operating grants and tuition revenue). However, given the academic integration, there are administrative arrangements to which they have jointly agreed for managing the academic enterprise.

• The Grenfell Campus is fairly independent and has its own budget. It operates within an envelope and has full autonomy to make its own decisions.

• There is not a high level of autonomy. • The Agriculture campus is part of the

University. It is always linked to the University as a whole.


f. Are the budget policies and procedures the same for each campus?


Faculty & Administrative Positions

• No there are slight differences on each campus of the University of Regina.

• With respect to the colleges, the budgets are not integrated. Each college manages its own resources independently with little consultation.

• The faith-based colleges, which are funded by the province as if they are full-service universities, pay the University for "infrastructure services", including everything from operating the common student information system, to student athletic and recreation services (net cost after student fees), to research administration, roadway maintenance and snow clearing, including a portion of the cost of all University administrative offices. Their fee, currently in negotiation, is set under agreement as 10% of their provincial operating grant and 10% of their tuition revenue annually. This is less than a detailed cost study suggests they should pay. The province provides the University a grant, roughly equivalent, for infrastructure services provided to a First Nations University.

• The budget policies and procedures are the same for each campus.

• The budget is set by the VP Council (all VPs minus the President).

• The budget policies and procedures are the same for each campus.

University of Regina Memorial University Dalhousie UniversityQuestion

Budget policies and procedures sometimes differed across campuses, although only one comparator had this model.


3a. How is marketing of academic programs and the University overall delivered? Can you provide a ballpark number of your annual marketing spending?


Marketing

• A Marketing Advisor provides advice and guidance. The communication area provides niche expertise to the University (e.g., dedicated web /social media strategist).

• Annual discretionary communications budget of $350k including salaries and benefits, the total communications budget is $1.8m.

• Student recruitment marketing occurs in the enrollment management function, not communications.

• On Main Campus, there is a marketing and communications group. It sets the marketing brand for the entire institution.

• The Grenfell Campus has a marketing position. This person works collaboratively with the Main Campus.

• Annual marketing spend is not known, since it is spread across the campuses / regions; an annual ballpark estimate would be several million dollars.

• There is a centralized communications and marketing department responsible for serving the needs across the University.

• No estimate was available for annual marketing spend.


b. How have you structured the delivery of marketing support to the academic faculties and departments to ensure their needs are met?

Question

Across comparators, the communications and marketing department is centralized. Responsibilities for student recruitment rest centrally with the Registrar's Office. Liaisons and dedicated resources often help support Faculty marketing efforts. Approximate annual marketing spend was not available across comparators.

• Marketing is not currently structured to have a liaison for each faculty / department.

• Student recruitment promotes academic programs.

• Each academic faculty / department has its own marketing budget. In addition, the larger faculties share a marketing resource who helps promote their own programs / courses.

• The marketing budget is 50/50 split between the Faculty and Communications / Marketing department.

• Broad-based marketing advertising is funded centrally. There is a close alignment to the Registrar’s office for student recruitment marketing.


4. Do you have a Provost?


Provost Structure

• �Yes – the Provost is also the VP Academic.

• Yes – the Provost is also the VP Academic. The Provost and VP Academic is the most senior VP of all the VPs. All the VPs participate in the budget discussions. The VP for Grenfell Campus has full authority over all aspects of the Grenfell Campus operations.

• Yes – the Provost is also the VP Academic.


a. How long have you had a Provost?

Question

All Universities have had a Provost structure in place for the past several years. This role reports directly to the University President. In all cases, the Provost title was given to the Vice President – Academic. Relatively minor challenges surfaced in implementing the Provost position.

• �Approximately 5 years. • Approximately 6-7 years. • � Approximately 4 years.

b. How does the Provost fit in the organizational structure?

• All three VPs (VP Research, VP Admin and VP Academic / Provost) report to the President.

• An Executive Director of Communications and 1-2 additional positions also report to the President.

• The Provost is second in command to the President.

• The Provost is also the VP Academic. • Using a corporate analogy, the President

is the CEO and the Provost is the COO. • The Provost’s focus is on strategic

decisions such as the budget, the academic mission and where investments are required.

c. Did you have any challenges implementing the Provost position? Please describe them.

• The VP Academic was given an additional title of Provost.

• It was described as a re-naming exercise consistent with other Canadian university VP academics.

• The VP Academic was given an additional title of Provost.

• When the new President was appointed, four years ago, he was a strong advocate for the Provost model. He implemented the current Provost model.

• The University is roughly four years into this enhanced model.


d. Is the Provost responsible for more than one campus?


Provost Structure (cont’d)

• Yes, the academic structure encompasses several campuses and colleges.

• Yes, the Provost is responsible for all campuses.

• Yes, the Dean of Agriculture reports to the Provost. As Principal, he reports to the President.


e. What challenges does the Provost face related to university organizational structure?

Question

Across comparators, the Provost is responsible for multiple campuses and has some or complete oversight of the total budget. The federated college model can create unique challenges for the Provost, but in recent years, this role has not faced significant challenges related to the organizational structure.

• The challenge is the federated model –their individual ambitions and sometimes the limited degree of interaction among the campuses. For example, there was a recent financial crisis at First Nations University. Senior governments took over financial control. The University moved into a co-administrative relationship with First Nations University.

• �

• The current Provost has held the position for 2 years. Prior to this, she was a Dean within the University structure. It has been a relatively smooth transition.

• �None specified.

f. Does the Provost have oversight over the budget?

• Nominally the VP Administration chairs the budget working group. However, with the creation of the Provost position and the subsequent passage of time, the Provost has become essentially an equal partner in leading this activity.

• Yes the Provost has oversight and responsibility for the budget.

• Yes the Provost has oversight and responsibility for the budget.


5. What are the physical and IT infrastructure challenges facing your campus?


Physical & IT Challenges

• Physical infrastructure repairs – some physical structures are beyond rehabilitation.

• General challenges relate to a declining number of students and therefore an increased reliance on international students for revenue.

• General challenges relate to both IT and physical infrastructure.


a. If you have two campuses, are there challenges facing this infrastructure that differ by campus or are increased by the existence of more than one campus?

Question

Physical infrastructure challenges consist of deferred maintenance (e.g., aging buildings, asbestos). With multiple campuses, it can be difficult to prioritize which buildings should be repaired first. Furthermore, universities often rely on technology to feel connected to one another particularly with different sites and geographies. Administratively, it is difficult to always ensure that IT upgrades are made equitably across different campuses.

• The Main Campus was built in the 1960-70s and needs a lot of repair work. There are roof leaks, building systems are compromised and the main residence is closed for renovation / rehabilitation. Some areas have mold and asbestos. There is a lack of funding to fix the facility demands.

• Main Campus buildings were built in 1961. Physical challenges today include deferred maintenance because of the age of the buildings and asbestos issues.

• Provincial government funding is directed to specific buildings / campuses. Grenfell has had significant funding for capital construction over the past few years.

• The University’s existing IT infrastructure creates challenges. The Main and Agriculture Campuses rely on technology to feel connected. It remains difficult to ensure they have consistent upgrades on both campuses.

• Physical challenges include aging buildings on the Agriculture Campus. The University is working towards fundraising initiatives and developing a campus master plan.

Shared Service Models



Final Report


Description:

One leader/separate units - In this type of shared services structure there is a single leader governing services across the organization, but separate staffs for different departments. UNB’s Human Resource Office is structured this way, where there is a single overarching leader for both campuses (AVP of Human Resources), but there are separate staff handling HR services for each campus.

#1 Entity Structure: One leader/separate unitsShared Service Models

Separate Admin Units

Separate Admin Units

FrederictonCampus

Saint JohnCampus

Academic

Programs

Academic

Programs

ONE LEADER Key Characteristics:

1. One leader who oversees two separate administrativebusiness units delivering the same function.2. There are separate staff organized in a formal businessunit at each location.

3. Optimal for organizations that require a physical presence in multiple locations e.g. client or infrastructure demands.

4. Entity model is the least efficient shared service modelsince it requires some duplication of resources.


Description:

One leader/one unit - Here, one organization provides services across all departments. The Office of Student Recruitment or Communications Office are two examples, where one unit leader and one staff handle these services for both campuses of the University.

#2 Complete Shared Service Structure: One leader/one unitShared Service Models

FrederictonCampus

Saint JohnCampus

Shared Service

Academic

ProgramsAcademic

Programs


1. One leader who oversees services across all functional departments.

2. There are no separate business units at each location.

3. Functional services are delivered across the enterprise/ organization from one business unit.

4. Optimal for organizations that require no physical presence in multiple locations and where information can seamlessly be provided on-line e.g. IT Services on cloud computing platform.

5. The Complete Shared Service model is the most efficientshared service model since there is no duplication of resourcesat multiple sites.


Description:

One leader/mixed units - Under this model, there is one unit leader, but staff within the unit may serve the entire organization or may provide services to specific departments/campuses.

#3 Hybrid Structure: One leader/mixed unitsShared Service Models

FrederictonCampus

Saint JohnCampus

Select Shared Services

Academic

Programs

Academic Programs

Select AdminUnits

Select AdminUnits


1. One leader who oversees services across all functional departments.

2. There are a limited number of separate business unitsat each location.

3. Functional services are delivered across the enterprise/ organization from one business unit, however, client or infrastructure demand may require a department service to have a separate business unit.

4. Optimal for organizations that require no physical presence in multiple locations and where information can seamlessly be provided on-line e.g. IT Services on cloud computing platform, but also need to reflect specific local needs.

5. Shared Service model is a slightly less efficient shared servicemodel, however it can address specific client needs that a true shared service model cannot address.


Spectrum of Shared Service DeliveryShared Service Models

INDEPENDENT: Multiple Leaders & Business Units

ENTITY: One Leader &

Separate Units

HYBRID: One Leader & Mixed

Units

COMPLETE : One Leader &

One Unit

Cost Efficiency & Decision Making Complexity

Cost of Overhead

Organizational Design



Final Report


Organization design is the deliberate process of configuring structures, processes, and people practices to create an effective organization capable of achieving the organization’s identified strategy.

Form Follows Function – strategy drives structure; processes are based on structure; and structures and processes define the implementation of people practices.

Structure is just one of several levers to be ‘pulled’ in organizations to optimize performance.

Effective organization design considers the following:

• Strategy

• Structure

• Processes & Systems

• People Practices

• Culture

The organization is not an

end in itself; it is simply a

vehicle for accomplishing

the strategic tasks of the

business.

A well-designed

organization helps everyone

in the business do her or his

job effectively.

A poorly-designed

organization (or an

organization by default)

creates barriers and

frustrations for people both

inside and outside the

organization.

Paul Galbraith


Principles of Organization Design



Common Organization Design Pitfalls

Observations Implications

Organization design efforts often begin and end just with a structure chart.

Creating just structure charts is insufficient with respect to effective governance and collaboration within the organization and across boundaries. And it is inadequate if you want people to adopt new accountabilities, responsibilities and ways of working.

Many organizations evolve without conscious design choices from a holistic perspective.

Piecemeal tweaks over time can result in structures that become inefficient, with unclear accountabilities and suboptimal working relationships.

Creating an effective ‘lean’ organization doesn’t happen by chance.

Focusing an organization on primary outputs and deliverables, and helping reduce non value-added activities is a common objective. However, lean organizations do not exist by chance. They have to be deliberately designed.

Today's organizations compete in rapidly changing environments.

Leadership should constantly rethink how their business is designed and how it can achieve and sustain increased levels of performance. No matter what is driving change, more rigour needs to be applied to ensure that structures, processes, systems, and capabilities all support the objective.

Organization design can become a political compromise – undertaken to find jobs for existing people.

Senior teams need an opportunity to work outside of the current conventions, politics and mindsets to start again.


Success Measures are the drivers of performance.

Organizations must employ methods and procedures that are measurable. Declaring success is difficult if there is nothing in place that can be measured to show proof of that success.

Three key criteria must be met in order to ensure that measures are critical and meaningful:

1. The information must be critical to the success of your company or organization.

2. It must be measurable and quantifiable.

3. A baseline must be established in order to measure progress or changes.

At the beginning of the

organizational design

exercise, the project

team set out specific

organizational success

measures for the

administrative review

project.

These success measures

were determined as

seen through the eyes of

different university

stakeholders:

• Executive Leadership

• Management

• Faculty

• External Partners

• Students


Organizational Success Measures

The Stakeholder How they will measure success with Administrative Services

Executive Leadership

Increased trust across the organization

Efficient and effective delivery of service with limited operational involvement

Increased faculty and staff retention

Management Sufficient authority to make decisions and sufficient resources to deliver

Greater integration across the organization

Support of the executive leadership team

Faculty Seamless and timely service delivery

Consistency in policy

Agency in the decision-making

External Partners Transparency

Clarity

Accountability

Students Empathetic responsiveness

Timely & communicative

Supportive


Design Principles Explained

Design principles form the criteria against which to measure the organization design.

Design principles should reflect a focus on effectiveness. An organization is effective if it is doing the right things to achieve its mandate and vision.

Design principles should reflect a focus on efficiency. An organization is efficient if it is doing things in a way that maximizes utilization of resources.

Design principles should reflect desired performance (success measures).

UNB’s Structures, Processes, Services, People Practices, Culture will be designed to ensure . . .

1. People can get the right information to make the right decisions at the right time

2. Consistency with strategic direction

3. Customer-focused approach

4. Organizational design around strategy and process not individuals

5. Each role has clear responsibilities and accountabilities

Following the

determination of success

measures, the Project

Team conducted an

exercise to arrive at five

key design principles.

These design principles

are the criteria which

three different

organizational models

will be compared against.


Organization Design Principles


Each group was given the list of university administrative services. Their task was to group the different services according to the model (Functional, Geographic, Program or a Hybrid) that they best felt reflected the requirements of UNB.

When grouping services together they considered:

The model’s characteristics

The purpose of the service

The skills and knowledge required to carry out the service

The type of work activities within the service

The outcomes or outputs of the service

The key interactions required to carry out the service

When separating services they considered:

The model’s characteristics

Span of control

Complexity of oversight

Strategic priority

Once the identification of services was complete, the Project Team participated in an exercise whereby all the services were grouped according to the adjacent criteria shown on this page.

The results of this exercise are illustrated on the following pages (38, 39 & 40).

Span of Control: The number of subordinates that a manager or supervisor can directly control. This number varies with the type of work. Complex, variable work can reduce it to two or three employees whereas routine, fixed work can increase it to twenty or more employees


Organizational Model Exercise


Advantages

• All student-facing administrative services are consolidated into one business unit serving both campuses

• Administrative services delivered through a shared service model based on one leader/one unit and service agreements

Disadvantages

• Service UNB is a complex model requiring significant resources at the outset

• Budget structure will require a redesign

• Responsibility for academic mission split between two leadership positions


Structure #1 – Service UNB Corporation Model

Note: This model includes a President’s Office that has strategic and administrative resources to directly support the President. For reasons of clarity and simplicity, the President’s office is not shown.

President

VP Finance & Administration VP AcademicVP Advancement VP ResearchVP Service UNB

Research Accounting

Funding & Grant Mgmt

Graduate & Post-Doctoral

Processing

Graduate & Post Doctoral Funding

Teaching & Learning

Planning & Resource Allocation

Academic Affairs

Student Affairs

Financial Services

Human Resources

IT

Facilities

VP Saint John Campus

Communications

Donor Relations

Alumni Relationship Mgmt

Marketing Office

Promotional Activities/ProductsAdvertising RecordsTuition & Fees

Student Relationship MgmtStudent Integration Student Life SvcsIT End User

Support

Health SvcsSport Svcs Cashier OpsFinancial Aid

Credentials MgmtOfficial Language Coordination Degree AuditGraduation

Application

Preceptor MgmtConvocation MgmtUndergraduate

Admissions Processing

Graduate & Post Doc Processing

Intl ProspectionStudent Recruitment

Academic Affairs SJC

Administration Contract Mgmt

University Secretary


Advantages

• Responsibility for academic mission assigned to the Provost; SJC VP responsible for academic affairs on SJC under the direction of the Provost.


• One budget for entire organization

• Ensures goals are integrated across academic and administrative units

Disadvantages

• Significant political challenges to successful implementation


• Additional payroll cost for Provost


Structure #2 – Provost Model

Provost

VP Saint John Campus VP AcademicVP Advancement VP Research

Research Accounting



Processing


Teaching & Learning

Academic Planning & Resourcing

Academic Affairs

Student Affairs

Academic Affairs

Teaching & Learning


Communications

Donor Relations


Strategic Partnerships

Marketing

VP Finance & Administration

Financial Services

Human Resources

IT

Facilities/ Security

Service UNB

Registrar

Student Affairs

President

Budget Planning


Board of GovernorsGovernance Support


Advantages


• One budget for entire organization

• Establishment of Service UNB

Disadvantages


• Provost position remains unaddressed

• Goals are not necessarily integrated across academic and administrative units

• Service UNB will require significant resources to initiate


Structure #3 – Shared Services Model

President

VP Finance & Administration VP AcademicVP Advancement VP Research

Research Accounting



Processing

Teaching & Learning


Academic Affairs

Student Affairs

Financial Services

Human Resources

IT

Facilities/Security

Marketing

Donor Relations



Communications

VP Saint John Campus


Board of Governors

Governance Support

Academic Affairs SJC

Teaching & Learning

Student Affairs


Budget Planning

RegistrarService UNB

Recruitment

President’s Office

Registrar



Design Principle ApplicationDesign Principle Supported by Structure

#1 People can get the right information to make the right decisions at the right time

Weak Support – complexity of design causes communication breakdown

Strong Support – One leader/ one business unit facilitates information transfer across campuses

Strong Support – One leader/ one business unit facilitates information transfer across campuses

#2 Consistent with strategic direction

Weak Support – Inconsistentwith strategic direction

Strong Support – Provostensures that the academic mission is consistent to UNB’s strategic direction

Medium Support – There is no one position accountable for ensuring consistency of the academic mission to the strategic direction of the University

#3 Customer-focused Medium Support – customer focused but overly complex design for UNB

Strong Support – Service UNB moves the University to being more customer focused

Strong Support – Service UNB moves the University to being more customer focused

#4 Organization designed around strategy and processnot individuals

Weak Support - Inconsistentwith strategic direction

Strong Support – Organization is designed around ensuring the academic mission and budget are aligned

Medium Support – Organization design does not address relationship between academic mission and administrative support

#5 Each role has clear responsibilities and accountabilities

Weak Support – roles and accountabilities are unclear

Strong Support – Provost fills a gap in responsibilities/ accountabilities that the President has not had the capacity to fill

Medium Support – Gaps in responsibilities/ accountabilities continue because of President’s limited capacity

Option A – Service UNB Corp Option B - Provost Option C – Shared Services

Recommendations & Implementation Plan



Final Report



Recommended StructureWorking through a series of workshops, the Project Team composed of UNB’s administrative leadership developed three different organizational structure models to address the findings of KPMG’s consultation with the University stakeholders.

After considerable discussion and deliberation, the Project Team selected the Provost organizational structure model detailed on page 39 of this report.

This model was subsequently reviewed with the President for final amendments and edits to ensure consistency with the strategic direction of the University.

This organizational structure is modelled on Dalhousie University which has both a Provost and a second campus at Truro, N.S. This model features:

• the establishment of a Provost position to link the academic mission to the budget

• the establishment of a Vice Provost position for the Saint John Campus

• the establishment of a common services desk for students similar to a 311 desk

• the implementation of a shared services (One Leader/One Unit) model across both campuses.

- Boxes with double outline represent positions

- Boxes with single outline represent areas of responsibility

Provost & Vice President Academic

Vice Provost Saint John CampusVP Advancement VP Research

Research Accounting



Processing


Teaching & Learning


Academic Affairs

Student Affairs

Academic Affairs

Teaching & Learning

Marketing

Donor Relations



Communications

VP Administration & Finance

Financial Services

Human Resources

Information Technology

Facilities/ Security

Service UNB

President

Budget Planning

Board of Governors

Registrar

Campus GrowthUNBSJ

Academic DirectionUNBSJ

University Secretariat

Support to: Board of

Governors Senates Governance



Recommendations


1 At present, the University operates with separate leadership for each campus. The two campuses are largely structured as stand alone enterprises with their own administrative leadership and budgets.

The University’s adoption of the one university/two campus model and the Project Team’s endorsement of the One Leader/One Unit shared services model will necessitate a change in how administrative services are delivered. The One Leader/One Unit shared service model will mean functional services are delivered across the organization from one common business unit. There will be no separate business units at each campus location.

• Adopt the One Leader/One Unit shared service model in which functional administrative services are delivered across the University organization from one common business unit.


• Removal of duplicate positions at either campus

• Operationalizes the concept of one university/two campuses

2 UNB currently operates without a Provost. There are two campus Vice Presidents each responsible for the academic affairs of their respective Campuses who work in cooperation with the third academic Vice-President responsible for research and graduate studies. The impact for administrative services is that the alignment of administrative resources to the academic mission of the University varies across the two campuses of UNB. In order for the University’s academic mission to drive the allocation of resources, there needs to be one Provost responsible for both campuses. The Project Team recommended that a new Provost position be created to which three Academic Vice Presidents would report. Given the financial position of the University, consideration should be given to the appointment of one of the existing campus Vice Presidents as Provost.

• Create a Provost position responsible for the delivery of the academic mission of the University and the alignment of resources (administrative and academic) across both campuses.

• In recognition of the financial position of UNB, designate the VP Academic (Fredericton) position as the Provost for the University and VP Academic (Fredericton).

• Designate the position of Vice-President of the Saint John Campus as Vice-Provost.

• Model the Provost governance model on Dalhousie University’s model, i.e. academic mission drives budget.

• University decisions align with its mission and strategic priorities across all campuses;

• Goals are integrated across academic faculties and administrative business units;

• Refocusing of the President on the external agenda of the University

• Clear and efficient decision making



Recommendations


3 Each campus currently has its own budget which is managed by the leadership team on the respective campuses. These budgets are developed largely independent of one another and are then brought together for approval by the University’s Board of Governors.

This budget structure is inconsistent with the one university/two campus model that UNB recently adopted. In addition, if the University wishes to move to a shared service model like the One Leader/One Unit model, the budget will need to be based upon the requirements of the business unit across both campuses and not structured according to geography.

• Structure the University’s budget so that it is based upon the requirements of specific business units across both campuses under the leadership of the functional leader.

• Increased synergy between the two campuses in the delivery of administrative services


• Better deployment of resources

4 The Saint John campus has enjoyed considerable success with the creation of a common services desk for students. The establishment of one desk to handle matters such as business services and registration has improved the student experience on the Saint John campus and reduced the administrative cost of operation for the campus.

There is an opportunity to replicate the success of the Saint John campus’s common services desk on the Fredericton campus. The Project Team identified multiple services that could be provided, including: cashier, transcript requests, parking passes, job applications, identification cards, room bookings, switch board, campus tours and/or residence applications. A key issue to be resolved on the Fredericton campus is facility location/home for the shared services desk. Currently these services are delivered across multiple buildings on the Fredericton campus. Consideration would have to be given to a central location for a common services desk with the appropriate support IT infrastructure and accessibility.

• Establish a common services desk for the Fredericton campus modelled on the success of the Saint John campus common services desk.

• Ensure that the common services desk has the necessary IT infrastructure and is located in a facility that is accessible to all students and staff of UNB.

• Expansion of the Common Services desk on the Saint John Campus


• Greater integration among the administrative services in the delivery of student services

• Decreased cost for the delivery of administrative services



Recommendations


5 We were advised that there are administrative staff located within academic faculties that are delivering administrative services often not in co-ordination with administrative business units (Finance, Information Technology, Human Resources, Communications, Recruitment). From our consultations, we understand these resources were acquired by the individual faculties because of a perceived need for fundamental administrative support that was not being met by the central department. The placement of administrative resources outside of their traditional departments has resulted in a disjointed approach to the delivery of administrative services.

• Continue with the practice of locating administrative positions within academic faculties to directly support the faculty’s academic mission; however, these administrative resources would report to the appropriate leadership of the administrative departments.





Prioritization of Opportunities

1 32 4

Difficulty to implement

Impa

ct o

n U

NB

High

Low

Low High

Sample rating of each of the potential opportunities for improvement against two criteria:

■ Difficulty to implement- This rating indicates the degree to which the

potential opportunity for improvement would be difficult (high) or simple (low) to implement

- A difficult implementation would come at a higher cost to UNB and / or may take longer to implement, while a simple implementation would come at a minimal cost and / or may be implemented within a short time frame

■ Impact on UNB- This rating indicates the degree to which the

potential opportunity for improvement would produce large (high) or minimal (low) benefits for UNB

- A large benefit would reduce the deficit by more than a small benefit

The order that opportunities should be implemented would be: (1) top left quadrant (low difficulty, high benefit), (2) bottom left (low difficulty, low benefit) and (3) top right (high difficulty, high benefit). Those in the bottom right quadrant would be considered to be optional as a result of the potential effort required versus the potential benefit derived.

1 2

3

4

5

1. Adopt the One Leader/One Unit shared service model in which functional administrative services are delivered across the Universityorganization from on common business unit.

2. Create a Provost position responsible for the delivery of the academic mission of the University and the alignment of resources(administrative and academic) across both campuses.

3. Structure the University’s budget so that it is based upon the requirements of the specific business units across both campuses under theleadership of the functional leader.

4. Establish a common services desk for the Fredericton campus modelled on the success of the Saint John campus common services desk and expand the Saint John Common Services desk.

5. Continue with the practice of locating administrative positions within academic faculties/ administrative departments to directly support the faculty’sacademic mission; however, these administrative resources would report to the appropriate leadership of the administrative departments.


Opportunities & Prioritization

Implementation PlanRef # Opportunities Activities Risks UNB Resources Timeframe Outcome

1

Adopt the One Leader/One Unit shared service model

• Review required organizational structure at mid-management level

• Identify early adopter departments and subsequent timeline for adoption

• Review businessprocess changes

• Implementation dependent upon recommendation #1

• Possible UNB Act amendments

• Differing Campus perspectives

• President & Provost

• Communications support

• Project manager • External

consultant• HR support

• 12 months • Operationalizes the concept of one university/two campuses


2

Create a Provost position responsible for the delivery of the academic mission of the University and the alignment of resources (administrative & academic) across both campuses

• Presidential approval• Consultation with

UNB community• Board approval• UNB Act amendment

• Not approved• Board rejection• Provincial rejection• UNB Act

amendment timing• Differing Campus

perspectives

• President• Communications

support• Project Manager • University

Secretary• HR Support

• 6 month consultation with Board review and possible approval in October 2017 with implementation to commence July 2018

• University decisions align with mission and strategic priorities across all campuses

3

Structure the University’s budget so that it based upon the requirements of the specific business units across both campuses under theleadership of the functional leader.

• Approval of new organizational structure

• Amend budget structure to reflect one leader one unit model

• Loss of comparative data

• Change management


• IT support• ERP alignment

with Project Focus

• Project manager

• 24 months (end of FY 18/19)


• Reduction in administrative costs


Opportunities & Prioritization

Implementation PlanRef # Opportunities Activities Risks UNB Resources Timeframe Outcome

4

Establish a common services desk for the Fredericton campus modelled on the success of the Saint John campus common services desk (“CCSD”).

• IT infrastructureplanning

• Facility planning & logistics

• Business process mapping

• Establishment and training of CCSD team

• Faculty consultation and training

• Capacity/resource restrictions because of other change initiatives


• Committed funds• External

consultant• Communications• HR & IT Support• Facility planning

• 24 months(end of FY 18/19)


• Greater integration among administrative services in the delivery of student services

5

Continue locating administrative positions within academic faculties/ administrative business units; however, change the reporting relationship to the appropriate leadership of the administrative departments.

• Approval of new organizational structure

• Map resources to organizational structure

• Consultation with faculty and administrative leaders



• HR Support• Provost & VP

Finance/Admin• Communications• External

consultant

• 36 months (end of FY19/20)



Appendix A: Structural OptionsUniversity of New Brunswick


Final Report


Structural Options

Organization Types Comparison ChartORGANIZATION TYPE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES USE WHEN

FUNCTIONAL

A functional structure is organized around major services/activity groups

Ex: custodial, finance, security, information technology

• Knowledge sharing within unit

• High functional specialization

• Efficiency & economies of scale

• Standardization

• Limited decision making capacity

• Communication across functions is difficult

• Coordination across functions is difficult

• Less responsive to end user needs

• Single line of business

• Common standards are required

• Highly regulated

• Core capability is based in functional expertise or economies of scale

PRODUCT/PROGRAM

A product structure is organized around products or programs

• Speed of product development cycle

• Product excellence• Product diversification• Operating freedom

• Duplication of effort

• Lost economies of scale

• Multiple customer points

• Product features are competitive advantage

• Multiple products for separate market segments

• Short product life cycles

CUSTOMER

A customer structure is organized around market segments or specific customers

• Customization• Relationship building• Solutions not just products

• Knowledge sharing is limited

• Duplication of effort

• Lost economies of scale

• Buyers/customers have power

• Customer knowledge is a competitive advantage

• Rapid customer service is key

• Rapid product cycles are key

GEOGRAPHIC

A geographic structure is organized around physical location

Ex: WLU (Brantford, Milton, Brampton)

• Responsive to regional customer needs

• Relationship building• Selective centralization-

decentralization

• Mobilization & sharing resources is difficult

• Sharing knowledge is difficult

• Multiple points of contact for clients

• Internal competition for resources

• Client relationships belong to whom?

• Smaller efficient scale exists

• High cost of transport

• Just-in-time delivery is critical

• Need to locate close to supply source


Structural Options

Organization Types Comparison Chart

ORGANIZATION TYPE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES USE WHEN

PROCESS

A process structure is organized around major processes

• Process excellence• TQ (total quality)• Cycle time reduction• Continuous Improvement• Easy measurement• Cost reductions

• Coordination between processes is often difficult

• Short product life• Rapid development cycles• Cost reduction is critical

MATRIXMatrix organizations are typically designed so that the “Front” of the organization faces the customer and the “Back” of the organization is product facing

• Single point of interface for customer

• Cross selling• Value-added systems &

solutions• Product focused• Multiple distribution channels

• Internal competition for resources

• Price disagreements• Customer needs

disagreements• Conflicting metrics• Complex accounting

• Multiple product lines and multiple market segments

• Global customers• Competitive advantage is in

combined customer and product excellence


Structural Options

University of Calgary


Structural Options

Wilfrid Laurier University


Structural Options

University of Regina


Structural Options

University of Lethbridge


Structural Options

Memorial University


Structural Options

Dalhousie University

President

Provost & VP Academic

VP Finance & Administration

VP Advancement VP Research Vice-Provost

Student Affairs


Structural Options

Dalhousie University Governance Model

kpmg.ca

© 2017 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.

unb review of administrative servicesthe project team recommended that a new provost position be...

Documents